View
232
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
8/11/2019 40204484 Multiverse
1/20
Canadian International Council
What Are We? From a Multicultural to a Multiversal CanadaAuthor(s): Robert LathamSource: International Journal, Vol. 63, No. 1, Diasporas: What It Now Means to Be Canadian(Winter, 2007/2008), pp. 23-41Published by: Canadian International CouncilStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40204484.
Accessed: 08/04/2013 14:45
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
Canadian International Councilis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
International Journal.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 130.192.108.45 on Mon, 8 Apr 2013 14:45:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cichttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40204484?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40204484?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cic8/11/2019 40204484 Multiverse
2/20
R o b e r t
a t h a m
hat
r e
w e
From
a multicultural
o a multiversalCanada
Samuel
Huntington's
most recent
book,
Who Are We?
The
Challenges
to
America's
National
Identity,
contends that the future of American
democ-
racy
rests on
the
prospect
of
defending
the
Anglo-Protestant
culture that
has been centre
stage
in
US
political
history.
Many
commentators have
rightly
questioned
the
premises
of this
book.
Rather
than
join
in,
let me
point
your
attention to
Huntington's
use of the
pronoun
who. f s a choice
that leaves
little
option
but to do
exactly
as
Huntington
wants: to make the
issue of an
overarching
ethnonational
identity
the
principal problem.
The
title of this
essay
is Whatare we? The
simple
substitution of what
or
who
makes the
principal
problem
our
understanding
of how what we call
Canada is
organized
in
sociopolitical
and ethical terms.
Huntington's
for-
mulation
takes this for
granted:
the
core
issue
at
play
for
him is
whether the
right
who WASP ethnocultural
identity
can remain central
enough
to
support
his
what the American liberal
republic.
Robert Latham is director of the York Centre of International and Security Studies at
York
University.
The
author
acknowledges
the
support
of
the
International
Development
Research
Centre to conduct this work.
|
International
Journal
|
Winter
2007/08 |
23
|
This content downloaded from 130.192.108.45 on Mon, 8 Apr 2013 14:45:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/11/2019 40204484 Multiverse
3/20
I
Robert Latham
|
I have purposefully left in the pronoun we, not to sneak in a who
but to
emphasize
two
things.
First,
that when
considering
ourselves
as a
collectivity
within
the national social
space
and
political
community
that is
called
Canada,
we do
so
in
terms of the
question
of what we are as
a
Canadian
society
rather
than who
we are
as Canadians.
A
second
-
and
far
more controversial reason
I
keep
the we s to
question
the
possibility
of
some kind
of
unified,
comprehensive
understanding
of we at all.
Indeed,
a
what
an
be conceived in a
highly
pluralized
and
fragmented
fashion
-
an
option
not
easily
available
in
answers to the
question
who we
are.
It
may be the case that understandings of what we are splinter along the axes
of
a series of two
Canadas hat not
only
include
the
one associated
with
the
worlds of
Francophone
and
Anglophone
or First Nations and
European
settlers,
but also the one that
distinguishes people
and
communities that
are
open
to the
very
question
of what we are?
embracing
difference
in
an
essentially cosmopolitan
world view from another Canada that is
dosed
to
this
question
and which
seeks
to
protect
itself
against
difference
and
cosmopolitanism.
Focusing
on a what s
hardly
unusual. Political
theorists,
at least
from
Hobbes onward,have done this ostensibly because principles and logics of
social
organization provide
a
powerful
justification
for
making
claims
about
how best to
order a
polity.
This
tendency
is far from
just
theoretical
or
aca-
demic:
in
Canada and
elsewhere,
those
responsible
for
policy
and
political
organization justify
action
based on claims about the nature of social life.
Among
the
most
central
understandings
of the nature of Canadian
society
is that it
comprises many
cultures and this
thereby justifies
policies
and
laws
associated with
multiculturalism.
I will
argue
that the
concept
of mul-
ticulturalism
actually
does
not
answer the
question
of what
Canada
s,
and
as a result we need to consider policies that are better suited to a more accu-
rate
understanding
of
the nature of
Canadian
society. My
overall
goal
is
to
suggest
that we
can move
beyond
a multicultural frame
and consider the
nature of the
social life
in
the
territory
we call
Canada
in
all its
complexity,
taking
account of
our far
greater
awareness of the
complex
interweave of
forms of
life
operating
at
varying
scales from
neighbourhoods
to transbor-
der
networks.
I
believe
we can use this
very open
conception
of the social
space
we associate
and
identify
as
Canada as a basis to
build effective
poli-
cy.
This
suggests
the
possibility
of
not
just
adjusting
or
amending
our
understanding and assumptions about multiculturalism, but working with
a
different
understanding
and set of
assumptions.
My point
is not to
reject
|
24
I
International
Journal
|
Winter
2007-08
|
This content downloaded from 130.192.108.45 on Mon, 8 Apr 2013 14:45:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/11/2019 40204484 Multiverse
4/20
I
What are we?
|
multiculturalismper se, even if it has flaws, but to move beyond it in a pos-
itive sense.
If
effective
and
just
policy
is a more
likely
outcome when
based
on a more accurate model
and
understanding
of
society,
then it
behooves
us to
pursue
that
greater
accuracy.
I
also want to
suggest
that what I call
multiversal
society
is
something
to
be
actively supported
and advanced
by
civil
society
and
government.
The
existence
and
recognition
of that form of
society
can be a
good
in itself. To
this
end,
I will
argue,
there are basic
policies
and
commitments,
such as the
advancement
of
multiple
citizenship
in
Canada
and
worldwide,
which can
make a huge differenceto the development of a multiversal society (theway
that
single
national
citizenship
itself has been so critical to the
formation
of
nation-states).
The reason
to take this task
on now is that
it
is dear that
many
people
in
countries
like Canada are
increasingly
anxious
about the difference
pro-
duced
by widening
immigration
and transnationalism
and
intensifying
energies
in the assertion
of
rights
in
many
realms
from
religion
to sexuali-
ty.
It is also
more
readily apparent
that
the
categories
we have used
to model
difference
such as ethnic
culture
or
majority/minority
group
are too
limiting: individualsareincreasingly understandingthemselves in far more
complex
and
intersecting
ways, involving,
for
example:
class, locale,
con-
sumption,
political
orientation,
sexual
preference,
and
religious
affiliation.
Rather than
be content
with
using
models from an earlier
period
of
politi-
cal
development
to contend
with the
politics
of difference
in
the
21st cen-
tury,
Canada
can
innovatively
get
ahead of
the
curve
and rethink itself as an
open,
transnational
society.
FROM
MULTICULTURALISM
O MULTIVERSALISM
By now many of us concerned with multiculturalism are familiar with the
criticisms
that have
been levelled
against
it from both the
left and the
right.
Criticisms
have included
the
ghettoization
of
new
immigrants;
the solidifi-
cation
of
Anglo-Canadian
culture as
a
norm;
the established
of a
culture
hierarchy;
he commodification
of
-
and fixation
on
-
culture;
the
papering
over of
crucial
class and
general
differences
and
inequalities;
and
the
pur-
suit
of a false
unity
and common
Canadian
identity.1
Rather
than focus on
1 The work
associated
with these
critiques
is far too
large
to list here. Readers
inter-
ested in critical and supportive perspectives
on
multiculturalism will
be well served
by
the
thoughtful
and
comprehensive
discussion
in
Gerald
Kernerman,
Multicultural
Nationalism:
Civilizing
Difference,
Constituting
Community (Vancouver:
UBC
Press,
2005).
I
International
Journal
|
Winter
2007-08
|
25
|
This content downloaded from 130.192.108.45 on Mon, 8 Apr 2013 14:45:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/11/2019 40204484 Multiverse
5/20
I
Robert Latham
|
such critiques I want to make two basic points. First,even if we have con-
cerns
about the
instrumental uses and
sociopolitical
effects of multicultur-
alism as an
ideology
and a
policy,
we can still
acknowledge
that Canada is
multicultural and the commitment
to multiculturalism
put
in
place
in the
early
1970s
-
while
not to
everyone's
liking
was an innovation
in
state-
society
relations.2
Second,
while we
may
recognize
the truism that Canada is multicul-
tural,
many
of
the criticisms
argue
directly
or
suggest
indirectly
that Canada
is much
more than
just
a
multicultural social formation. It is
multiracial,
multidass, multigendered, multisexual, multilocal (from rural to urban,
from North
Toronto to Harbourfront
Toronto).
It
is
multipolitical,
multire-
ligious,
multilegal-status,
multilingual,
multihistorical
(within
lives and
across
communities),
and
multiprofessional.
It
is
multigenerational,
multi-
status
(from temporary
worker to
citizen),
and
multiscalar
(with
lives real-
ized at difference
scales,
some which
remain more or less within a
single
province,
while others
reach
regularly
across borders and
oceans).
The
list
is not
exhaustive and
perhaps expands
far out to
the horizon when
we
con-
sider all the
mixed
formations,
such as
hybrid-ethnicities
(e.g.,
Chino-
Latinos)resulting from mixed marriages or hybrid spatial forms growing
out
of a
mix
of urban and
suburban
in
the new
in-betweencities that sur-
round
many
of
Canada'surban
centres.3
2 I
am
especially
aware
here of the
concerns
of
people
in
Quebec
since
1971
about
dilution
along
the cultural axis in
the move from bi- to
multi-cultural.
See,
for exam-
ple,
Richard
J.F.
Day,
Multiculturalism
and The
History
of
Candian
Diversity
(Toronto:
University
of
Toronto
Press,
2002).
3
On mixed
marriages,
seethe recent research
by
Minelle
Mahtani,
Interrogating
the
hyphen-nation:
Canadian
Mixed
race women and
multicultural
policy,
in
Sean Hier
and B. Singh Bolaria, eds., Identity and Belonging: Rethinking Race and Ethnicity in
Canadian
Society
(Toronto:
Canadian
Scholar's
Press,
2007),
124-56.
On in-between
spaces,
see
the work of
the
city
institute
at York
University
at
www.yorku.ca.
I
26
I
International
Journal
|
Winter
2007-08
|
This content downloaded from 130.192.108.45 on Mon, 8 Apr 2013 14:45:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/11/2019 40204484 Multiverse
6/20
I
What are we?
|
Of course, on one level, there is a cultural dimension to everything I
mentioned.4
Indeed,
it
certainly
helps simplify
matters to reduce the over-
whelming
array
of social
domains, identities,
and
spaces
to varieties of
cul-
ture. But it is
the
huge
differences and
multiplicity implied by
the seem-
ingly
infinite
everythings
n
a
society
that
I
want
to
emphasize
should
be
taken
into account
on their own terms when
thinking
about
the
nature of
Canadian
society.
A small
town,
for
instance,
has a
culture,
but it also has
an
economy,
political organization,
one or more
religious
communities,
and
a
particulargeography.
Each of these
many
factors
may
find
expression
in the town's culture but what is expressed has its own force and logic.
An
important
reason
not to be satisfied with
one
single pivot
like cul-
ture to anchor
the difference and
multiplicity
that constitutes Canada
s that
we
can
help
avoid
trying
to fit all the
complexity
and
changeability
of the life
of individuals
that
can be identified
on one level as Caribbean-Canadian
into an
overarching
concept
like Caribbean-Canadian
culture. Not
only
might
an individual
understand
his life
in
Canada
through
her
race,
but
also
her
class,
sexuality,
neighbourhood,
and
political
connections
to the
Caribbean.
She
might
also alter
these
understandings,
positions,
and relat-
ed practices throughout her life or even in the same year. The same could
be said
for a
group
within
the so-called Caribbean-Canadian
ommunity.5
And
while
legal
frameworks
such
as the Canadian
charter of
rights
and
freedoms
can
provide
protections
and
the basis for claims
along
many
vec-
4
See
Will
Kymlicka, Finding
Our
Way: Rethinking
Ethnocultural
Relations
in
Canada
(New
York: Oxford
University
Press,
1998),
chapter
5.
This
implies
that we can
address other
dimensions
of
human
experience
and
society,
sexuality,
or
race,
through
the lens of culture. To my mind this is a misguided attempt to preserve the
primacy
of
multiculturalism
as the
best
approach
for
dealing
with
social difference.
Critiques
of the
attempt
to
reduce the
complexity
of societies
and identities
to culture
have come
from
varying
quarters,
including
the critical social
theorist
Shela
Benhabib,
The
Claims of Culture:
Equality
and
Diversity
in
the Global
Era
(Princeton:
Princeton
University
Press,
2002)
as well as
the liberal
political philosopher
Brian
Barry,
Culture
and
Equality:
An
Egalitarian
Critique
of
Multiculturalism
(Cambridge:
Harvard
University
Press,
2001).
5
While
Kymlicka
reads
Neil Bissondath's
Selling
Illusions:
The Cult
of
Multiculturalism
in
Canada
(Toronto: Penguin
Books,
1994),
as
chiefly
complaining
about multiculturalism's ghettoization of immigrant groups, I read him as chiefly
complaining
about
being
forced
to live his life
through
the cultural-ethnic
category
of
Caribbean-Canadian.
I
International
ournal |
Winter
2007-08
|
27
|
This content downloaded from 130.192.108.45 on Mon, 8 Apr 2013 14:45:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/11/2019 40204484 Multiverse
7/20
I
Robert Latham
|
tors from sexual preference to disability, charters are not proactive pro-
grammatic
policy
like the multiculturalism act.
We
can
shrug
our
heads and
say
that
taking
into
account
all this com-
plexity
and
multiplicity
is
too
much even to
begin
to
fathom,
let alone sort
out as a basis for
organizing
Canada
politically.
The first
part
of
this
objec-
tion
has
merit: it is
unreasonable to
expect
a
coherent,
structured
portrait
of
society
once we
open up
our frame to take the
full
range
of
multiplicity
into
account. But
I
would
argue
that
attempts
to
create
such
carefully
structured
portraits
are
really
attempts
to contain
social
complexity
in
some
concep-
tion that is only partialat best. Ratherthan be satisfied with these partial
portraits
(a
multicultural or a unified
Canada)
we can
just accept
that
we are
a
multiverse
made
up
not
just
of
many
identities
and
perspectives,
but also
many
specific
domains of action and
practice
from
health and education
to
the
environment,
and that all
these
many
universes
are
changeable
to
vary-
ing degrees.
If it
is true that
political
theorists and
policymakers
start
with a model
of
society
that is
typically
used as a
point
of reference for
building
a
theory
or
policy,
what
happens
if we
treat
that
model of
society
as
an
open,
variable
conception that always presents itself as ultimately impenetrable? The
question
what are
we? should be seen as a
recurring
or even
permanent
problem
to be
addressed,
rather
than a
question
to be answered
in the inter-
est of
moving
on
with
political
theorizing
or
policymaking.6
In
this sense
I
am
asking
that we
keep
the
question
what
are we?
in
constant
motion.
Thus,
multiversality
is first a claim that no
macro-conceptualization
can
realistically represent
the
basic structure of
society.
The
term
multiversal
society
represents
a
conceptual place-holder
for
a
complex, overlapping,
inconsistent
social formation
that
we are otherwise
often content
to call
society or Canada.7Multiversalism does not try to fix meaning, but to pro-
6
Despite
the effort of
theorists like Iris
Young,
Inclusion and
Democracy
(New
York:
Oxford
University
Press,
2000),
to forestall the
typical
fixity
in
theorizing,
it continues
today
in
the
work,
for
example,
of
Bhikhu
Parekh,
Rethinking
Multiculturalism:
Cultural
Diversity
and
Political
Theory
(Cambridge:
Harvard
University
Press,
2000).
7
In
this then
I
agree
with
social theorists such as
Ernesto
Laclau,
New Reflection on
the
Revolution of Our
Time
(London
and New York:
Verso,
1990),
89-92,
who con-
tend
that
the view of
society
as
an
intelligible
totality
is
essentialist and
misleading.
This does not mean that
we have to
agree
with
Margaret
Thatcher when she
quipped
there is no such thing as society, meaning to assert that we should worry less about
the
welfare of
the British
people
as a
collective.
My point
is that we can
understand
this
collective
in
all its difference
and
multiplicity
as multiversal.
I
28
I
International
Journal
|
Winter
2007-08
|
This content downloaded from 130.192.108.45 on Mon, 8 Apr 2013 14:45:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/11/2019 40204484 Multiverse
8/20
I
What are we?
|
vide a conceptual frame for individuals and groups to navigate democratic
contestations
and life choices. A multiverse is
never
complete,
and is never
knowable or
transparent.
And
yet
I have the nerve to ask for
government
action based on such an
understanding
of Canada?
Moreover,
I am
asking people
who
are
living
under the
authority
of the unified Canadian
state,
in a
distinct,
bounded ter-
ritory
with
national
symbols,
media,
and
systems
of
infrastructure,
to
rec-
ognize
themselves
in
this
disjointed
and
potentially
confusing
way. My
will-
ingness
to ask
this of
policymakers
and
publics
is
not
only
based on the
belief that this is a more honest and comprehensive understanding of life
in Canada.
It also holds the
promise
of
opening
the
way
toward
important
social and
political
innovations that
will
establish Canadaas a
global
leader
in
rethinking
how to
help organize
life in an
increasingly
transnational 21st
century.
In that
context,
part
of the task of the state is to undertake action
that
will
facilitate
complexity
and
multiplicity.
Before
I
go
on to
suggest
some
steps
in
that
regard,
I will first
try
to
clarify why
we need the
term multiverse and what are the
advantages
of
thinking
of
Canada
in a multiversal
way. Why
bother
with
the
term multi-
verse? I think this somewhat strange and awkwardword as multicultur-
al
ikely
sounded
decades
ago
is
necessary.8
For some the word diversi-
ty
might
do,
given
that the term
multiversity
s
quite proximate
to the
term
diversity.
However,
while
diversity
and
multiversity
have similar
meanings
associated
with
difference
along
many
vectors from class
to
gen-
der,
the word
multiverse
is more
closely
related
to the world
universe,
the
point
being
that
the use of
the term multiverse
is to
convey
that there
are
many
universes
(understood
in
this context
as,
for
instance,
a domain of
activity
like
healthcare,
a discrete
public
sphere
realized
through
a
busy,
robust internet forum, a locale such as a town, or a form of community that
might
emerge
out
of a women's
rights
movement).9
Indeed,
in a multiverse
8 William
James
was the
first known user of
this term to
convey
the
need
to under-
stand
that
the world is made
of a
plurality
of
perspectives
and
subjectivities.
See
William
James,
The one and
the
many,
Pragmatism:
A
New Name
for Some Old
Ways
of
Thinking
(New
York:
Longman
Green and
Co.,1907):
49-63.
Since then the
term
has
been used
mostly
in
natural
science
to describe
a
reality
composed
of mul-
tiple
universes
and
-
in a similar fashion
-
in
science fiction.
9
The notion
of
multiple public spheres
in the same
country
is
developed by Nancy
Fraser,
Rethinking
the
public
sphere:
A contribution to the
critique
of
actually
existing
democracy,
in
Craig
Calhoun,
ed.,
Habermas and
the Public
Sphere
(Cambridge,
MA:
MIT
Press,
1992),
109-42.
I
International
Journal
|
Winter
2007-08
|
29
|
This content downloaded from 130.192.108.45 on Mon, 8 Apr 2013 14:45:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/11/2019 40204484 Multiverse
9/20
I
Robert Latham
|
you do not just have diversityacross one universe, but diversitywithin and
across
many
overlapping
and
intersecting
universes,
so that
there are a
seemingly
infinite
variety
of
views,
life
trajectories,
and identities.
Just
as multiculturalism and
diversity
fail
to
convey
what is
meant
by
multiversalism,
the
terms
hybridity,pluralism,
and
cosmopolitanism
also
fall short. As indicated
above,
hybridity implies
a
mixing
and
crossing
of
various identities and dimensions of life
i.e.,
working
class
immigrants
that
otherwise hold
together
as
integral
on their own terms.
In the multi-
versal
frame,
the
point
is
to allow for
both the
hybrid
and
non-hybrid.10
On one level multiversality s, like multiculturalism,merely one partic-
ular form of or
approach
within
pluralism,
the latter
being
in this funda-
mental
sense
the
basic
assumption
that
any
given
social and
political
for-
mation should be
thought
of
in
terms of
multiplicity
and difference.
The
problem
is that
pluralism
taken
in
this sense is far too
abstract and
gener-
al to
convey
the
specific
points
about multiversalism
I
have
already
made.
Indeed,
pluralism
typically
takes
form as a
specific
theory
about
the
nature
of democratic
politics. (Historically,
n
the US
in the
1950s,
it
focused on
the role
of
interest
groups
in
politics;
in
Britain
in the first decades of the
20th century,it focused on the power of nonstate social organization. )The
ways
we
might
imagine
a
politics
of multiversalism
will
surely overlap
with
the
politics
of
pluralism.
like the other
terms,
cosmopolitanism
has
important
affinities
with
multiversalism,
given
that
I
assume that individuals
positively disposed
to
the Canadian multiverse will
be
cosmopolitans.
That
is,
they
will be
open
and
supportive
of difference and
willing
to share
social
space
with
groups
and
individuals with all sorts of identities and
ways
of
being,
if
not also
will-
ing
to
participate
n and
affiliate with their diverse universes.12
However,
it
io
I am
using
hybrid
here to
represent
social forms where there is a clear
identity
of
mixture like Latin
jazz,
Ukrainian-Portuguese,
or
gay
South Asians.
I
recognize
the
point
that
every
form
ultimately
is
hybrid
because of historical and concurrent
influ-
ences that
are not
highlighted
in
an
identified
mix. A
key
text
on
hybridity
is Homi
K.
Bhabha,
The Location of Culture
(London,
Routledge,
1994).
11
One useful
attempt
to review
the various faces of
pluralism
is
Gregor
McLennan,
Pluralism
(Minneapolis: University
of
Minnesota
Press,
1995).
12 See David A. Hollinger, Postethnic America: Beyond Multiculturalism (New York:
Basic
Books,
1995)
for a
statement of the
advantages
of
cosmopolitanism
over
plu-
ralism
and
multiculturalism.
I
30
I
International
Journal
|
Winter
2007-08
|
This content downloaded from 130.192.108.45 on Mon, 8 Apr 2013 14:45:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/11/2019 40204484 Multiverse
10/20
I
What are we?
|
should be clear thatcosmopolitanism represents a perspective,attitude,and
set of
practices regarding
others and other worlds rather than a
framework
for
understanding
the nature of social life in Canada.
Indeed,
multiversal-
ism,
as a
very
strong
version of
pluralism,
assumes that Canadacan
include
decidedly non-cosmopolitan perspectives,
even if
these come
at the
cost of
hindering
the
development
of
policies
that
encourage
multiversity.
It should be clear
by
now that
I
believe multiversalism is a
good thing.
That belief
rests on the near truism
that
multiplicity
and
difference
across
Canada
are
necessary
for the widest
possible
development
and circulation
of ideas about the organization of social and political life through varied
approaches,
critiques,
assessments,
and
proposed
alternatives.
Democracy
may
be valued for
many
reasons
but
one
of them is the
potential
for a wide
set of
options
and
thoughtful
evaluations
regarding
public policy
and
norms to
help
make economic
life,
social
welfare,
foreign
policy,
and envi-
ronmental action
to name
a few areas better.13 he
point
is that no one
philosophy,
approach,
individual,
or
group
will
have all the wisdom
and
effective
policy
on
its
side,
even
if
they
have much of the
power
and
access.
Therefore,
as
many
relevant
perspectives
on an issue as are
present
in the
Canadian multiverse ought to contribute to collective thinking on issues
from
lawmaking
to
diplomacy
expressed through
public
debate,
consulta-
tion,
and
political
conflict.
Beyond
the
advantage
of
having
more
perspectives
on
the
nature of
political
and
social life
that can sometimes
help
us avoid bad
decisions and
mistakes
or
see them when
they happen,
a multiverse means
the existence
and
possibility
of more choices
in
the
ways
and
places
within which we
might
live our lives
from
rural to
urban,
gay
to
straight,
traditional
to
experimental,
collective
to individualistic.
Whatever
one's views on the
desirabilityand difficulty of protecting these forms, facilitating access to
them,
or
making
them more
visible,
it should be
understood that
the
posi-
tion
and
perspective
from
which one criticizes
such
desirability
and difficul-
ty
is
part
of
the multiverse.
Indeed,
one of the
advantages
of
seeing
Canada
as a multiverse
is that we need
not
agree
on a
hierarchy
of
pivots
for under-
standing
difference
in
Canada,
ncluding
nation,
culture, race, class,
sexual-
ity, religion,
rural/urban,
new/old immigrant, language,
and
disability.
13
Young,
Inclusion
and
Democracy,
142,
goes
as
far as to
argue
that
multiplicity
is
necessary
for
democracy.
I
International
Journal
|
Winter
2007-08
|
31
|
This content downloaded from 130.192.108.45 on Mon, 8 Apr 2013 14:45:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/11/2019 40204484 Multiverse
11/20
I
Robert Latham
|
MULTIVERSALISMND COMPLEXCOEXISTENCE
I
realize that the
very
possibility
of
protecting
difference
and
facilitating
access to it
presupposes
a
liberal democratic
polity
within
which funda-
mental
rights
are
available,
along
with
space
for democratic
practices
and
expression.
But
just
as multiculturalism
helped push
the Canadian
liberal
polity
beyond
its
mostly
individualistic foundation
toward
the
development
of
group rights,
multiversalism can
push
it further
by emphasizing
specif-
ic
rights
of coexistence not
just
between
identifiable
groups
and communi-
ties,
but also within such
groups,
as well as within
and
across
spaces,
bor-
ders, and spheres of activity(from the factoryto the clinic).
Within the
context
of this
essay,
I
cannot articulate
a
political
theory
of
such
rights,
only
suggest
some
simple starting
points
for
thinking
about
how one
might begin
to
approach
such a
theory, specifically
in the realm of
citizenship.
A critical first
point
is the
understanding
that to view Canada
as
a
multiverse,
highlighting
the
profusion
of social
forms and
identities,
does
not entail
displacing
the
primacy
of the state
in
political
life. On
the con-
trary,
n
the Canadian multiverse
the state's
centrality
is
more visible
as the
one set of
institutions
that is
in
effect
present
in
every
sphere
of life. The
nature of its presence can varyfrom the veryconstitutor and key agent in a
domain
such
as
education or
healthcare,
to
being
one
among
a
number of
forces
in
civic
spaces
such
as a
neighbourhood
or the media.
One
implication
of this is that
the
fear that
rights-claiming
newcomers-
immigrants
will
dissipate
the
political
coherence
of Canada
is unfounded.
Among
the
many
nation-making
activities the
state undertakes is the con-
stitution and maintenance of
borders,
territory,
national
symbols,
civic
edu-
cation,
a common
currency,
and
territory-widemilitary
force.
As one coun-
try
among
many
in
the
wider international
system,
Canada
maintains a
coherence based on these elements that belies concerns with difference and
multiplicity
as threats to
unity.
It is
only
a
challenge
like the
potential
suc-
cession of
Quebec
that
brings
the foundations of the Canadian state
into
question.
The
point
is that it is not shared
understandings, per
se,
that
make a
polity,
but
shared
institutions, activities,
symbols, space,
and
territory.
While
shared
understandings
can
emerge
around
any
of
these, or,
say,
a
humanitarian
emergency
inside
Canada,
they
are
not
prerequisite
to
politi-
cal life. We
can
think
of a
family
whose members
may
share
a home with
very difference understandings of the space and its purposes. Where spe-
cific rooms are
shared,
the
family
needs to ensure that
spaces
have multi-
ple
meanings
and
purposes (i.e.,
a
room
for
music and
meditation).
The
key
|
32
I
International
Journal
|
Winter
2007-08
|
This content downloaded from 130.192.108.45 on Mon, 8 Apr 2013 14:45:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/11/2019 40204484 Multiverse
12/20
I
What are we?
|
to coexistence or more appropriately,complex coexistence is how they
contend with the
different frames of reference for
understanding
the rooms
and their uses
(through
intersecting, overlapping,
and
alternating use).
Multiversal
difference reinforces the
political
robustness of Canada
in
that the common
element that
joins
the
many spheres
associated with soci-
ety
is the
Canadian state.
Similarly,
transnational
processes involving
the
movement
of
people,
images,
and
goods
in
and out of Canadacan reinforce
the functional
integrity
of a state that
guards
its borders and
territory
and
regulates
movement.14
On an
experiential
level,
the
very
awareness of
transnationality (or perhaps more accurately,translocality)on the part of
someone
in
movement,
or someone
observing
someone
in
movement,
rests
on their
emplacement
in a
specific
territory
ike Canadaand
place
like
a Vancouver
or Windsor
thereby reinforcing
the
integrity
of Canada as a
place
to be transnational
or translocal
in or
from.
In
this
respect,
newcom-
ers and
those
who
repeatedly
eave
and return
are a
part
in
many
differ-
ent
ways
of the
already
existing
complex
fabric of a multiversal
Canada.
They
reinforce,
by
their
presence
and
movement,
the
distinctiveness of
the
Canadian
political
community
in
local,
national,
and international
contexts,
by raising the very questions of what is that they are part of and on what
terms.
I realize
that those
Canadians
who
reject cosmopolitanism
are all
too
likely
to be
uninterested
in
recognizing
that Canadian
dentity
rests on
any-
thing
other
than
their
self-understanding
of
what it is
-
in
national
and
local
terms.
Since
we
already
have
a multiverse
whether we like
it or not
in
places
like
Herouxville,
QC
the
question
is
what are the terms
of inter-
section
among
its
many
components.
One
key aspect
of
this
challenge
is
dealing
with
tensions
between
the
many
universes
inside Canada
hat come
in contactwith one another in physical and symbolic terms. The typicallit-
mus
test
is when
one
group,
established
in the
country
for some
time,
finds
the actions
of
newcomers
objectionable
or
repugnant,
leading
to various
forms
of social
conflict
in
terms
of
a fear of
change.
The current
debate
in
Quebec
over
reasonable
accommodation
is
exactly
this,
contending
with
tensions
arising
out
of
overlapping
universes.
When some
self-identified
14
On
the
ways
that
globalization
reinforces
states,
see
Linda
Weiss,
The
Myth
of
the
Powerless State (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998); and Stephen Castles and
Alastair
Davidson,
Citizenship
and
Migration:
Globalization
and
the Politics of
Belonging
(London:
Macmillan,
2000).
I
International
journal
|
Winter
2007-08
|
33
|
This content downloaded from 130.192.108.45 on Mon, 8 Apr 2013 14:45:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/11/2019 40204484 Multiverse
13/20
I
Robert Latham
|
majority feels they are the predominant shaper of a space and place the
question
is
why
should
they
make
exception
for others?
Why
accommodate
when
you
are the chief constitutive
power,
with
the main
capacity
to
shape
spaces
not
only
based
on
majority
numbers and
precedent,
but control
of
government
and other institutions?
Returning
to
my
previous
analogy
of the
family
home,
what
happens
when
you
have
two
families of
very
different orientations
sharing
the same
home,
but with
one
family
outnumbering
the
other,
setting
up
its life
first,
and
being
in
legal
control of the home? So
far,
iberalism has
suggested
that
minority rights to live according to one's cultural norms ought to be pro-
tected as
long
as
they
follow the
basic laws
of the land.15But no liberal
approach
solves common
public space
issues where universes
intersect. To
just
admit
there is an inherent conflict
in
such intersection
means it is left
essentially
to the courts to sort out the
logics
of harm and benefit
(which
they may
do
poorly).
It is
also
inadequate
to
call for
peaceful
coexistence
when the
grounds
for
it
are not there.
The
question
is what is the
guiding
principle
of
complex
coexistence?
A
multiversal frame
suggests
the
possibility
of
moving
beyond
the reason-
able accommodation concept that assumes minority/majority duality to
articulate
the less
presupposing
concept
of
complex
coexistence
(of
space
and
particular
forms
of
constitutive
power)
such
that the
various
domains
(or
universes)
of
practice,
institutions,
symbols,
and
meaning
overlap
and
abound, but,
in
principle,
need not interfere with one another
(the
halal
Chinese restaurantcan
be next to a Polish
one).
We know that
many
streets
in
Canadian cities from
Vancouver to Ottawa are like
this,
as various reli-
gious, political,
aesthetic, class,
racial,
and moral
sensibilities
(progressive
or
conservative)overlap
and
interweave,
along
with the
regulatory
elements
of the state guiding the provision of sidewalks and crosswalk. The members
of
various universes as a
result can
experience
the same
space differently,
focusing
on the elements
that make it theirs. When
they
want to
engage
or
experience
the other
overlapping
universes
about
them,
they
can do so
without
having
to ask others to
alter their
practices.
Multiversalism
further
suggests
that
these universes are
splinted
with all sorts of
prismatic
effects
across
generations,
genders,
classes,
philosophies,
and
types
of
presence
in
Canada
(length
and nature of
time
in
residence and
legal status).
That
is,
15 This is the position so articulately worked out by Will Kymlicka, Multicultural
Citizenship:
A
Liberal
Theory
of
Minority
Rights
(Oxford:
Oxford
University
Press,
1996).
I
34
I
International
Journal
|
Winter
2007-08
|
This content downloaded from 130.192.108.45 on Mon, 8 Apr 2013 14:45:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/11/2019 40204484 Multiverse
14/20
I
What are we?
|
the spacesare experienceddifferentlywithinand acrossidentitygroups.
The notionthat
hey
are
a
them,
haping
pace
n
one
way
with one set of
meanings,
and we are
an
us,
haping
space
in
one
way
with
one set of
meanings,
becomes
deeplyproblematic.
One critical
ssue is the effects of what is taken
by
some to be visual
offences
(e.g.,
the miniskirtor the
hijab,
dark
kin,
or
working-class
ttire)
that s
typically
he resultof
the
unanticipated
ncounter
someonewalking
by),
where
options
for structural
eparations e.g.,
clouded
glass
or
fences)
are
few.We know that these
encounters
ypically appen
n
the interstices
betweenworlds the placesof transit,whereone'svery presencealready
assumes
all
forms of
risk,
from crime
to accidents o visual offence.16
n
small
townthe salience
of each encounter an
be
high
becauseof the lower
population
ensity.
We knowthat
the
option
o avoidchanceencounters
a
key aspect
of
public
space
is not available o
many
as
they
go
to
jobs,
clinics,
and
schools.17
multiversal
erspective
uggests
that
in encounter
one is
not
confronting
n ethnic
or
culturalbloc
bursting
with multicultur-
al
rights,
but
individuals
orting
out their
complexexperiences
of world-
making,
expression,
difference
class
and
racial),
nd theirown
episodes
of
encounteras well.Whilethisrecognitionwill noteasilyovercomenon-cos-
mopolitan
attitudes,
t does underscore
hat the
negotiation
of
transitory
encounter
s
possible
on an individual r small
group
basis,
rather han an
ethnic
bloc
basis.18
16
Mary
Louise
Pratt,
Imperial Eyes:
Travel
Writing
and Transculturation
(London:
Routledge,
1992)
uses
the term encounter
differently
but
relatedly.
She
points
to the
contact
zones
that are the
spaces
of colonial
encounters,
the
space[s]
in
which
peoples geographically and historically separated come into contact with each other
and establish
ongoing
relations,
usually
involving
conditions
of
coercion,
radical
inequality,
and
intractable conflict.
My
taking
the term encounter
out of the colonial
context is
meant to
open
the
way
toward
noncoercion,
equality,
and
nonviolent coex-
istence.
17
Much
has been
made of encounters
in cities.
See,
for
example, Ervmg
Goffman,
Encounters:
Two Studies
in
the
Sociology
of Interactions
(Indianapolis:
Bobbs-
Merrill,
1961).
While
-
as
Jane Jacobs,
The
Death and Life of American
Cities
(New
York:
Random
House,
1961) pointed
out
-
suburbs can limit
encounters,
it is not nec-
essarily
the
case that
towns limit
them,
which is one
of the reason some
Que be cois
are concerned about accommodation.
18
For some
early
reflections
on
logics
of
restrain
in
encounter,
see Edward
Ross,
Social Control
(New
York:
Johnson
Reprint
Corp.,
1901/1970).
I
International
Journal
|
Winter
2007-08
|
35
|
This content downloaded from 130.192.108.45 on Mon, 8 Apr 2013 14:45:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/11/2019 40204484 Multiverse
15/20
I
Robert
Latham
|
TOWARDA COMMITMENTTO MULTIVERSAL ITIZENSHIP
Issues of
encounter and
complex
coexistence raise the
questions
of who
is
encountered,
why
they
are
encountered,
and on
what
basis
do
those
encountered have claims
and
rights
to be of and
in a
particular
multiverse.
Lying
at the
heart of
the
backlash associated
with
reasonable
accommoda-
tion is the
simple
query,
why
are
they
here in
my
world?
But what do
they
or we
mean
by
world?
Is it
a
specific
neighbourhood,
enclave, town,
province,
or national
territory?
n
national
terms,
there is little
opportunity
in
contemporary modernity
with
its
large
cities,
diverse labour and
popu-
lation needs, and transnational, economic, transport,and communication
structures to live
in
anything
other than a multiverse. Even
if
one lives
in
a
small
town,
the
overlaps
are
many
because of travel or
spillover
at the
edges
as suburbs come to abut rural towns and labour needs
bring
in new
residents. There is of
course,
no
shortage
of
arguments
such
as
Huntingtorfs
in
western
democracies
against
the
most
visible
and
charged
source
of
multiversity,
new
immigrants.19
They
seem to be made
as a last
gasp
of
desperation
to save a set
of traditions
generated
by
imagined
politi-
cal
nostalgia
in
Huntingtorfs
case or far less
ambitiously
by
a
nostalgia
for the local world of the everyday(in towns and neighbourhoods) taken to
be
threatened
by
dissolution and loss of
predominance.
I
would
argue
that,
once we
stop
taking
the claims
arising
in
Quebec
lately
at face
value,
a
more
accurate
way
to
read them are as
endeavours to find a secure
place
in
a sea
of
multiversity
operating
within, across,
and
beyond
local,
provincial,
and
national
boundaries
especially
because these claims
do not
come with
any
meaningful
overarching
frame for
negotiating
the world
beyond
their local
perch.
These efforts at
preservation,
thus,
can be understood as
recognition
of
multiversity
and its
force
in
shaping
Canadian social relations on
many
geographicalscales, from local to global.
If
we
thus can
assume modern
life is
multiversal,
and
perhaps
becom-
ing
more so with
time,
we
should
at
least
explore
what it
means to have an
obligation
to
ensure
fairness
and
justice
to
everyone
who is
part
of it and to
think
through
on what
terms those new
to
it
become a
part
of it
(on
the
assumption
that
each newcomer
is
a
test of what we
are).
Some readers
may
believe
I
am
placing
too
much
emphasis
on
immigrants
and
diasporas
19 For a thoughtful discussion of the fear of immigration in liberal democracies, see
Roxanne
Lynn Doty,
Anti-immigrantism
in
Western
Democracies
(New
York:
Routledge, 2003).
I
36
I
International
journal
|
Winter
2007-08
|
This content downloaded from 130.192.108.45 on Mon, 8 Apr 2013 14:45:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/11/2019 40204484 Multiverse
16/20
I
What are we?
|
when I have argued strongly for a far broader view of difference but I
chose to focus on
this issue-area because of
the
currently
charged
environ-
ment around
it in Canada and other
developed
democracies and because
the movement
of
people
in
and out
of national
spaces
should
challenge
societies
to think
continually
about
what
they
are.
We
might
start
by
reiterating
that,
as
pointed
out
above,
multiversity
is
in
part
about
the
multiplicity
of
geographical
scales
from local to
global
that
constitute
and intersect
through
Canada.
People
understand and relate to
Canada
through
a
diversity
of these scales.
Some,
at face
value,
are
anchoredmostly in the local and provincial,and even so it is likelythat such
locality
is
actually
translocal
as
they frequently
move across the border of
the United
States
(from
vacations
and
shopping
to
visiting
relatives down
south).
Others
have translocal
links
to
places
in
France,
the
Caribbean,
South
Asia,
and
so on.
They
remain connected
-
and
thought
of
as
part
of
a
diaspora
for
various
reasons,
including
work, business,
and education
similarly
to those
who are linked
to the US.
If,
in a
multiversity,
an
individual can
have various
types
of ties and
relations
across,
within,
and
beyond
the
border,
and that
person
and
the rest
of us consider those ties as good or Canada,as argued above, then we
should
facilitate
multiple
forms
of
presence
in,
and connection
to,
Canada.
Certainly
multiple
forms
are
already
enabled,
from tourist to citizen.
However,
exclusive,
single-nation
citizenship
remains the frame
against
which
all other
forms
of status
are understood
as
exceptions, including
multiple
citizenship.
In
addition,
many
of these other
forms have
profound
insecurities
associated
with them.
Recent research
is
showing
that
many
relative
newcomers
to Canada
are
here under
various forms of
precarious
status,
whether
they
are or had
been
students,
temporary
workers,
or
refugee claimants.20The implication, therefore, is that there is opportunity
for
stronger
support
for the
multi-scalar
and
a multiversal
approach
to
status
more
generally
in Canada.
I
believe
that
a
simple
way
to
move toward
this
support
is for Canada
explicitly
to
treat and
support
what can
be termed multiversal
citizenship
as
the
primary
frame
against
which all
other forms
of status
are understood.
A multiversal
citizen
has
citizenship
in one or more
territorial states
and
20 See the paper by Luin Goldring, Carolina Berinstein, and Judith Bernhard,
Institutionalizing
precarious
immigration
status
in
Canada,
available
at
www.atwork.settlement.org.
I
International
ournal
|
Winter
2007-08
|
37
|
This content downloaded from 130.192.108.45 on Mon, 8 Apr 2013 14:45:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/11/2019 40204484 Multiverse
17/20
I
Robert Latham
|
secure status in any state in which they are resident. While this view of cit-
izenship may
be
jarring
to our ears which are so accustomed to
the
hard,
exclusive
citizenship
associated with nation-states it should not be over-
looked that
more
fluid,
overlapping
forms of
membership
existed
in
empires
both
ancient
(Roman)
and modern
(British).
Now that human
rights-based,
non-imperial,
transterritorial orms of
belonging
and
mem-
bership
are
possible
(with contemporary developments
in
global
norms,
rights,
institutions,
communications,
and
travel),
it
ought
not
be
labeled as
unfeasible
by
states
protective
of their exclusive forms of
belonging.
Along those lines, the Canadian government clearly has, in recent
decades,
been liberal
toward
multiple citizenship,
a
core dimension
of
mul-
tiversal
citizenship.
Efforts
in
the
mid-1990s
in
parliament
to contest mul-
tiple
citizenship, by
forcing
those with Canadian
citizenship
to
express pri-
mary
allegiance
to
Canada,
were
not successful.21This
liberality
created
public
controversy
when
Lebanese-Canadianswere aided
in
their effort to
flee an Israeli
invasion
in
2006. On the other
hand,
the Canadian state has
strengthened
the
residency
requirement
making
the attainment of a sec-
ond,
Canadian,
citizenship
more
difficult.22
n
addition,
in
the
post-9/11
securitycontextmany multiple citizens from the Middle East and south and
central
Asia have
found out that
they
not
only
may
not receive
protections
as
Canadians but
they
can be treated
as
dangerous
suspects
who
can be
more
easily
deported
than
Canadian-only
citizens
(who
would
in
effect
become
stateless).23
Rather than
treat the risks
associated
with
multiple
cit-
izenship
in
the
current
environment as a reason to
avoid
it,
we
might
con-
sider
strengthening
the
protections
associated
with
having
it.
21
See
the
discussion
in
Donald
Galloway,
The
dilemmas of Canadian
citizenship
law,
in
T.
Alexander Aleinikoff
and
Douglas Klusmeyer,
eds.,
From
Migrants
to
Citizens:
Membership
in
a
Changing
World.
(Washington,
DC:
Carnegie
Endowment
for
International
Peace),
82-118.
22
Lloyd
Wong,
Home
away
from
home?
Transnationalism and the Canadian
citizenship
regime,
in
Paul
Kennedy
&
Victor
Roudometof, eds.,
Communities
Across
Borders: New
Immigrants
and
Transnational Cultures
(London,
Routledge,
2002),
169-181.
23
Daiva Stasiulis
and
Darryl
Ross,
Security,
flexible
sovereignty,
and the
perils
of
multiple citizenship, Citizenship Studies 10, no. 3 (July 2006): 329-48; and Audrey
Macklin,
The
securitization of
dual
citizenship,
forthcoming
in
Thomas
Faist, ed.,
Dual
Citizenship
in
Global
Perspective
(New
York:
Palgrave
Macmillan,
2008).
I
38
I
International
Journal
|
Autumn
2007
|
This content downloaded from 130.192.108.45 on Mon, 8 Apr 2013 14:45:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/11/2019 40204484 Multiverse
18/20
I
What are we?
|
On whatbasis wouldI ask for multiversal itizenship o be established
as
the
primary
ramefor
citizenship
when the
vast
majority
f Canadians
have
single
citizenship
and
many
of this
majority
re troubled
by
alterna-
tive
framings)?24
he easiestanswersare
probably
he
least
compelling:
hat
stronger
upport
or multiversal
itizenship
can
enrichthe Canadianmul-
tiverse
by
making
multiscalar ives
easier,
which is a
good
in
itself,
as
argued
above;
nd that
single citizenship,
n
a
multiverse,
s
but
one
type
of
status
among
many,
even
if it
is
predominant
n a nationalbasis.
In
other
words,
single-state
citizens are mulitiversalcitizens.
Beyond
these two
answersare othernotablereasons. One is thatany single citizen,or her
children
and
family,
are
potentialmultiple
citizens.
Creating
n
environ-
ment where
multiple
citizenship
s takento be the norm
strengthens
he
possibility
of
that
option
for those
with
single
citizenship
who
otherwise
might
fear oss
of Canadian
itizenship).
Another eason s that a commit-
ment
to
multiversity
manifest n real terms
in
part
throughstrong
sup-
port
for
multiple
citizenship
can
expand
he
meaning
of Canadian ivic
identity
hat
s consistentwith
ts historic dentification s a
country
dvanc-
ing
multiculturalism nd
acceptinghigh
levels
of
immigration.
Finally, robablyhe mostimportant eason s thatnormalizingmulti-
versal
citizenship
can
potentially
pen
the
way
to a more secure statusfor
those individuals
with
precarious
tatus
n
Canada.
The idea is that all res-
idents,
regardless
f the nature
of their
status,
can be
thought
of as mutiver-
sal citizens
f
they
are
n
Canada
in that
heyalready
ave
citizenship
rom
somewhere
else and
are
potential
citizens
of Canada.
n
other
words,
if
multiversal
itizenship
s the
norm,
then securestatusshould
be extended
to those
who are
currently
ere
with
precarious
tatus.
This extensioncan
take
various
ormsfroma
proposed
US-styleamnesty
o the redefinition f
formsof securestatusshortofpermanent esidenceor fullcitizenship.The
possibility
f
receiving
Canadian
itizenship
houldbe a normative
oal
for
all
people
who reside
n
Canada,
o matter
whattheircurrent tatus.
Ultimately,
he establishment
of norms
of multiversal
citizenship
require
nternational
rotections
nd
commitments o
multiple
citizenship
worldwide.
n
effect,
here
shouldcome
into
being
an
international
egime
24
When
thinking
about
multiple
citizenship,
it is
important
not
only
to consider
immigrants inside Canada but the nearly three million Canadians abroad. See Kenny
Zhang,
' Mission
invisible':
Rethinking
the Canadian
diaspora,
Canada-Asia
Commentary
46
(September
2007).
I
International
Journal
|
Winter
2007-08
|
39
|
This content downloaded from 130.192.108.45 on Mon, 8 Apr 2013 14:45:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/11/2019 40204484 Multiverse
19/20
I
Robert Latham
|
for multiple citizenship. Such a regime should establish the parametersfor
one state
extending
citizenship
to
the citizens of another
state;
articulate
protections
and
rights
for citizens of
one
country
who are
present
and resid-
ing
in
another
country
without
citizenship
or
permanent
residence
in
that
country;
and
strengthen
the channels and
rights
for interstate
protection
of
citizens who are detained
in
other countries even if
they
are citizens of the
country
detaining
them
-
beyond
those derived from the Vienna
conven-
tion on
consular
relations.
An
international
regime
for
multiple citizenship
could
help place
understandings and developments of citizenship within the context of the
multiscalar
connections between societies and
peoples
and
thereby poten-
tially
take it
out
of
the frame of exclusive state formation/5 It could also
help
contend with
notions of exclusive
loyalties by
institutionalizing
the
possi-
bility
of
multi-allegiances.
I
am not
suggesting
that the
construction
of this
regime
will
be
easy.
In
fact,
it will
take
considerable
leadership.
This is an ideal
opportunity
for the
Canadian
state to re-establish itself as a
primary
actor in
the
international
arena. Difficult
issues include how to contend with
competing
claims
by
individuals and governments across jurisdictions; prevent states from
using
the
regime
as a
basis
for
establishing
even
greater
control over bor-
ders and human
movement;
and
determine the effects the
regime
should
have on the
openness
of borders.
Luckily,
we
already
have some
precedent
in
international
instruments,
such as the
1997 European
convention on cit-
izenship.
And there
clearly
is
precedent
for the
Canadian state's exercise of
international
leadership
in
areas such as
the international ban on land-
mines and the
development
of
multilateral
peacekeeping.
Each of these
areas also had
difficulties
that
seemed
insurmountable at first. This leader-
ship role could expandCanadiancivil identity beyondwhat would be gained
by
a
domestic
commitment to
multiversalism.
25 For a cogent, thorough exploration of the exclusive state formation frame, see
Rogers
Bru
baker,
Citizenship
and
Nationhood
in
France and
Germany
(Cambridge:
Harvard
University
Press,
1992).
I
40
I
International
Journal
|
Winter
2007-08
|
This content downloaded from 130.192.108.45 on Mon, 8 Apr 2013 14:45:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/11/2019 40204484 Multiverse
20/20
I
What are we?
|
CONCLUSION
I
am not able
to
explore
here
proposals
for domestic action
advancing
mul-
tiversalism or
for international action
advancing
a
multiple citizenship
regime.
Even without such
proposals,
readers will
likely
see that
I
am ask-
ing
a
great
deal of Canadians:
to
reframe
an
important
part
of Canadian
civic
identity
regarding
difference
in Canada
(multiculturalism);
o confront
head-on
yet
one more divide that between
cosmopolitans
and non-cos-
mopolitans
beyond
language,
race,
and
ethnicity;
to rethink the
meaning
of
citizenship
and
place
it within a
very
transnational
frame;
and to take
responsibility for leading other countries in sorting through the very diffi-
cult
realm of
multiple citizenship.
My
optimism
that this
call will not be
completely ignored
rests on
the
Canadian
history
of
political
and social
innovation.
|
International
Journal |
Winter
2007-08
|
41
|
Recommended